The High Court approved an application by the Adoption Authority of Ireland to make an adoption order for Y without consulting Y’s birth father, whose identity was unknown to the Authority. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 5 October 2020, concerned the proposed adoption by Y’s stepfather. It records approval to make the adoption order; it does not state that the order itself was made in these proceedings.
The Authority applied under section 30(5) of the Adoption Act 2010. The provision allows an adoption order to be made without consulting a father if the mother or guardian provides a statutory declaration that she cannot identify him, the Authority has no other practical means of identifying him, and the required counselling has taken place.
An Authority staff member’s affidavit said Y’s mother was very young when she became pregnant. It said Y was conceived during a trip some years earlier, when she had a consensual sexual encounter with the birth father while somewhat intoxicated. The two did not exchange details, and she did not know his name. The affidavit said she had been counselled about the consequences of being unable to identify him. These are matters reported in the affidavit, rather than separate factual findings set out by the court.
The proposed adopter is the mother’s husband. The affidavit said he regarded himself as Y’s father and believed adoption would reflect their relationship. It also reported that Y had researched adoption, carefully considered the proposal and wanted the same legal relationship with the proposed adopter as his half-sister has with her biological father. A Túsla social worker’s report concluded that adoption was proportionate to support Y’s wishes and was in his best interests.
The report said Y did not plan to change his name. He saw adoption as more than a name change: he wanted the family to have the same legal standing and described the aim as becoming a “complete and permanent family”. The report also recorded that he considered guardianship but did not see it as meeting his wish for a lasting legal relationship.
The judge said the statutory best-interests factors had been comprehensively addressed in the affidavit and social work report. The court accepted that evidence and, having considered it and the pleadings, was satisfied to grant the application and make the order sought. The judgment does not disclose Y’s stated birth date or the family’s names.